Evaluating Country Programmes - OECD Online Bookshop

OECD 1999
Chapter 2
Country Programme Evaluation:
A State of the Art Review
A Desk Study Prepared by Tim Conway
and Simon Maxwell,*
Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
Introduction
Country programme evaluations (CPEs) have come to be increasingly
important, as donors attempt to rationalise and consolidate their aid activities
through country programming. Recognition of this led to the first systematic
analysis of CPEs at a seminar held by the DAC Expert Group on Aid Evaluation,
in Vienna, in May 1994. At that time, only a few donors had completed a significant
number of CPEs. A second seminar, once again in Vienna, was held in
March 1999. This paper is a contribution to that seminar. It reviews the field of
country programme evaluations and attempts to describe the range of
approaches adopted.
Two broad questions underpin the study. First, is country programme evaluation
worthwhile? Secondly, if it is thought to be of value, how should it be carried
out? To the first question we would answer “yes”, but with some caveats.
CPEs can indeed play an important role as one among several evaluation instruments
available to donors, but their potential contribution depends heavily
upon a number of variables. On the second question, we find a wide variety of
approaches. Preliminary conclusions on what constitutes good practice under
given circumstances are presented at the end of the chapter.
* This study was prepared over five weeks in January and February 1999, under contract to the
Development Co-operation Directorate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. The findings are based on a desk review of materials provided by the
Evaluation Service of the Directorate, and by DAC Members, as well as on a small number
of interviews with members of aid agency evaluation departments. We would like to express
our thanks to all our informants, and especially to Hans Lundgren and Maria Iarrera of the
OECD, for their help and support. We also received helpful comments from other steering
committee members, Chris Raleigh (UK) and Ted Kliest (the Netherlands). We alone are
responsible for the contents of the report.
53